Disclosure of Ownership 2015-2024 Form

Don't give up too much but also be realistic in estimating the profibility of your venture. If you think you'll have $50k in sales the first year and 100k in year two don't sell 50% of the company for a total of $10k. Make each split representative of how much each is investing. If you have an idea that everyone thinks is a $500k business then investor #1 at $10k should get approx 2% of the business, so on and so forth. This is a basic "presale" of estimated worth example but honestly all you should keep in mind is that they stakes should be proportionate at the outset to make sure there aren't grumblings of being treated unfairly. Don't sell one stake of 25% for less than another at 10%. And lastly always retain at the very minimum 51% of the business for yourself.

Hopefully, nothing too terrible. CA will have to reinvent its financial and central banking. It will have to reconcile its balance sheets to pay back anything they owe to other banks. Interest rates will go up 8+% for CA.The US and new CA will have to workout trade deals and hopefully an FTA. CA is not just a producer state but also a very big consumer state. It has one of the largest populations of any state in the US and growing fast. It has always been a great market to try out and sell new and expensive products. So an FTA is very much likely.Taxes can go in any direction on both sides. CA will have to deal with its social and welfare programs whose balance sheets don’t look all that great. The pay check for all Californians will see a massive increase because of no federal taxes : anything from 20% to 35%. That will bring in enormous purchasing power. However, this will be offset by an increase in local taxes as all federal funded programs will have to be now locally funded. That still will not be so bad.CA probably doesn’t need to invest in any military assuming that it got its secession by negotiation and as such would face no punitive actions. This brings down the state funding requirements signNowly. They will only require a border patrol although they would probably walkaway with a good number of military assets that are currently deployed in the state. This can be really funny. The US can deliberately leave a very large military for CA to fund and watch its economy blow to hell with that. The feds are fully aware of the coercive nature of the military industrial complex lobby.The US will have reduced social spending obligation. This is not a small change. CA’s population puts enormous obligations on the feds for social / welfare programs. However this is a double edged thing as CA also pays a lot into these programs. The US will generally be fine without CA ; But the economics don’t look too good. The feds will take a 35% hit in tax revenue. That’s no small amount. The economic opportunities of the future are all in CA. Tech investors and some of the largest funds / equities are in CA. This really complicates things for the US as a whole and this will be the single most important sticking point which makes a secession impossible. The demographics, tech eco system, population density, tax revenue, financials and general outlook is all in favor of CA. Due to this no state / representative will support seceding of CA outside of CA. For the feds, its the equivalent of letting a cash cow go lose. That makes a peaceful CAXIT next to impossible unless it is through massive civil disobedience. That still has consequences and a high price in more than monetary terms. The only convincing answer is that the feds get 35% of taxes from CA, but also spend 20% back into the states welfare programs leaving the effective loss at 15% only.I do not see any possibility of secession happening in the next 15 - 20 years. Then again, this is the era of social networks and miracles do happen sometimes.On the bad side, the CA administration can no longer blame feds for their problems and will be forced to recon with the inflation and vested interest groups. The sheer number of lobby groups will cut out huge holes in the administration and funding programs.CA has its own set of massive problems to deal with including a nor-cal vs so-cal debate. It might trigger secondary breakdown of CA into nor-cal / so-cal or the coast line vs rest of the state. The idea of secession is quite dangerous as there are many groups wanting different things and the success of one group will inevitably encourage others to follow suite. The biggest issue for the feds is that this can create a series of break ups. CA wont be alone. It will fuel other states to demand a secession as well. Texas and Florida will join the exit band wagon. Losing CA, TX and FL will eliminate 2/3rd of the US economy, industry and military might. The spillover damage will be enormous. In addition china will become the dominant power on the planet. Don’t like the sound of that.Perhaps the best route is to negotiate for greater autonomy rather than a complete secession. Secession is the result of bad policies causing public outcry. The most prudent thing to do is to simply reduce public burden. CA only needs to reduce wasteful spending while feds can reduce the effective tax rates in CA by allowing greater tax breaks considering a cost of living difference. The feds can simply add a rental waiver which allows people to deduct their rental expenses from their income bottom line. This will relive the middle class of CA from excessive tax burden and make life look more reassuring. This alone will reduce the demands for a separate nation.CA’s inflated market needs to be addressed by all parties affected/involved. Secession wont solve this. Either the CA’s local governments or the feds will eventually have to address this single issue to bring in stability. The million dollar small homes and indirect taxes are local issues and will not be solved by secession. It has to be addressed by supply of new homes.People are no longer retiring in CA. They are looking out of CA for retirement. This is a lot of money fueling real estate in other cities and states. That has serious impact on the states own viability. CA cannot simply lose everyone's lifetime earnings to other states. Its simply unsustainable. It needs to make a case for itself as a destination for retirement as much as a destination for young and dynamic. The cost of living makes it worthwhile to invest outside of the state in short term and fuels activity in other places. You cant show great weather to convince someone to get into a a lifetime of debt for what is essentially a fundamental requirement for middle class living. All of the bravado of CA’s great economy is point less if the average earning person shares his 2 bedroom 1200 square foot apartment with 2 more families to make ends meet. Standard of living and not the cost of living should be the metric of progress. CA has to face this issue no matter what it does. It can secede and face it later or can face it now and avoid a major embarrassment by doing something stupid.

How is your darts game? Oh, no actually it does not matter that much, can you at least hit the wall when you throw. Good. Copy any countries health care other than the US and Somalia, throw your dart and choose one. Ok probably the dartboard should be the industrialized nations, as their health care is more complete than developing countries struggling with economics, but any form of universal coverage would help reduce unnecessary expenditures due to the behaviors that non-coverage creates.When people without coverage don’t seek health care right away, the cost of treatment begins to multiply, further when they go to the only doctor that can not turn them away due to their not having insurance - this being the emergency room where cost for the same treatments are the highest - and when everyone who does pay also indirectly pays for everyone who does not - well that is the inefficient inhumane US system.We could argue about what other industrialized nations universal coverage national health care plan is the best and the least expensive or we could just throw darts and pick wherever it lands, they all cost about half of the US health care costs, and provide better care as evidenced by their longevity and reductions in infant and maternal death rates. They are all better! We could also extend Medicare to become Medicare for all, though we would probably have to let Medicare negotiate Rx prices as is done in all other countries. The Republicans when they created Medicare Part D gave a full price gift of a perpetude of profits to their friends in big pharma when they did not allow the government to negotiate on prices, this is stupid and has to stop.The question as stated contains a false assumption that universal national health care would be more expensive (yes it would be more expensive for the government, rather than paying premiums to insurance companies we would need to pay taxes) however the total cost would decrease, and should be around half the current total cost for better overall care and outcomes.Link between health spending and life expectancy: US is an outlierIf you want more improvement or more service than what a plan costing 50% of our current costs with universal single payer that also provides better care outcomes than our current market, personally take your 50% savings and buy supplemental coverage for yourself, there would be nothing stopping you.A single payer plan can negotiate better rates. Since there is one plan not 1,000+ different plans everyone will know what is covered what the incentives are towards less expensive care and the claims administration cost that are about 25% to 30% of Health Care cost should decrease signNowly when each patient uses the same not different claims forms. Competitive advertising cost of healthinsurance companies should be eliminated.There are also the savings for the less expensive preventative medical care being covered for everyone so fewer patients have conditions that go untreated until they are harder and more expensive to treat. This should drive down emergency room cost, the most expensive form of health care but often the only form of careavailable for patients without coverage. Further medical prices will not need to subsidize the hospitals for the unpaid medical bill of others.There are many economic reason why universal coverage is the only rational way to go. Further as the population becomes healthier, they also become more productive and need to take fewer sick days or days to care for others who are sick. There is also the social welfare compassionate reason for a country to provide healthcare to all. In the end all patients wins. Yes there are fewer insurance companies, this being the major source of lobbying that is currently insisting on private non universal plans, this is what is preventing reform.Erik Hille's answer to Why does America spend so much more per capita on healthcare than countries with universal healthcare?Erik Hille's answer to How would a liberal counter the argument that nationalized healthcare is too expensive for the government?Erik Hille's answer to Would you support a national health care system in the US? Why or why not?Erik Hille's answer to What if you were told to design a healthcare program for the US?

Aside from Universal Basic Health Care in USA, which seems politically infeasable, what are some good solutions to combat cost of healthcare in USA?Do what evry other nation doeslimit the care given to set standardsdisallow non-generic medicationslimit end of life carelimit the spending based on the current age and life expectancy of the personreduce the excessive capacity that is not being used, which would reduce the basic cost of services (idle time of a facility still has to be paid for)use wards instead of private and semi-private roomsreduce the use of high tech diagnostics when low tech yeilds the same diagnosiscut provider cost 20% by eliminating all of the ompliance reportingcut taxes on medical supplies, services, warehousing, drugs, facilities, providers, etc.Elimminate double taxation (example Maryland adds a 15% tax on medical services, and the services include already taxed supplies and medications)eliminate taxes on health insurace, wich is usedto pay already taxed services, which include already taxed supplies.The compounding taxes add 20% to the overall costs

I am a Millennial, just shy of 30 years old. And I supported Hillary in 2008. But like many of my cohort, I’m finding it hard to support her over Bernie.Here’s the thing: we’re angry. My generation feels like it’s been screwed over.Imagine you’re a high school sophomore on 9/11/2001. You hadn’t been political before, not really. But now the world just got bigger and scarier. You stay up until dawn, talking on AIM with your equally freaked-out classmates, trying to figure out what’s ahead.We got the War on Terror, an entirely predictable clusterf***.You’re a senior now, in 2004, going on a class trip abroad. The kids your age from Europe are horrified when you talk about college - it costs HOW much?! Their governments subsidize education. Yours builds aircraft carriers to bomb civilians half a world away. That, and jails to house the black kids who were stop-and-frisked and caught with a dime bag. You consider trying to pass as Canadian, and wonder how it got to this point.It’s 2006, and you’re in college. By now you understand. The country is split between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans don’t seem to care about their own interests - they just want to vote for someone who hates blacks, foreigners, queers, sluts, and godless pinko intellectuals as much as they do. You aren’t a white evangelical, so you vote Democrat. They have no reason to care about your interests either, but at least they aren’t actively targeting you to appease their base. Both parties are thus free to represent their real constituents, the rich people who give them money.To the extent that either party is scared of a demographic, it’s the Boomers. There is periodic talk about how the Boomers are going to bankrupt Social Security and/or the health insurance system. But there’s a whole lot of them, and they vote. So any solution that’s not politically toxic involves kicking the bill to us (and Gen X), and oh yeah, we’ll have to reform the system so that you don’t get the same benefits either. Also, we would rather not think about global warming, so good luck with that too.A hit song comes out: John Mayer’s “Waiting On The World To Change”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REqz9D7OWZE) It perfectly describes how you feel. It’s not that you don’t care, you just know that the fight ain’t fair, so you’re waiting. (Waiting for old Republicans to die, mostly, but what else can you do?)It’s now 2008, and you’ve graduated. You’re lucky enough to get a good job at the company you worked at during college. But the economy is flying itself into a hillside, and a few months later, the company shuts its doors.You have no income, not much savings, a pile of debt, and NOBODY is hiring. The cheapest health insurance you can get costs more than your rent. You’re 22 and healthy, so you do without. You cut yourself pretty badly, but you manage to clean the wound and Superglue yourself back together instead of paying for stitches.In the meantime, Obama has taken office. You’re excited! But the Republican side is in full revolt. Obama, the professor, floats reasonable centrist proposals. The Republicans paint these as pinko Muslim traitor talk, and counter-propose the farthest-right policies they can think of. They gleefully announce that they’re going to bring government to a standstill, and they do.You’ve crunched the numbers, and you have until May 1 to either get a job or move back home with your parents. On April 30, you get a job offer. It’s menial work, not what you’ve trained for, but it has a paycheck and benefits. You take it. (You’ve changed jobs since then and worked your way up, but you’re still making 60% of what you were in 2008.)You watch Obama's first State of the Union, and in the midst of a giant ball of platitudes, he mentions that there are different types of Americans. Some of them, people like you, others like your family, neighbors, and friends. From the Republican reaction, you would think he had murdered a bald eagle on live TV. Those people aren't REAL Americans! How dare he! And then you watch this strategy WORK, both at the polls and in terms of moving the window of acceptable discourse.You've cut Obama some slack. You understand what he's up against. But you're not thrilled about it. Obamacare, sure, it was the best he could do. But nobody forced him to let the banks off with barely a finger-wagging, or give away the store in secret trade negotiations, or continue broken War on Terror policies, or...Mostly, you feel like nobody with any power is pissed off on behalf of people like you. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Sanders.Are you still surprised at how many of us are feeling the Bern?Sec. Clinton is, by a long shot, the most qualified person running. She knows exactly what she’s in for, and would hit the ground running on day 1. But I’m still really struggling to support her. This is why. She was high-up in the administrations of both Pres. Clinton and Obama, and she’s ideologically aligned with them. She thinks we’re mostly on track. People my age tend to disagree.In one of the debates, Hillary was asked if she knew why young people weren’t supporting her. I really hoped she would speak to some of this. Instead, she dodged the question so fast, it looked like an out-take from The Matrix. Sigh.Not that I don’t have my concerns with Bernie. I would love for someone to pin him down on what, precisely, he’s going to do when it’s February 2017, he’s president, and he narrowly controls the Senate but not the House. Because that’s a best-case scenario. Obama had a mandate too; that and $2 buys you a coffee. I am too old and cynical for chin-wagging about revolutions. I want politics, and dirty politics at that.